Lock out laws shut down Sydney's Oxford Street

Elizabeth Farrelly

Poor old Oxford Street. If you want to kill a party stone dead, you stop the alcohol, right? People say they'll stay, but once they start sipping water, they remember tomorrow's early start and it's all over. Dead as. Same with a city's nightlife.

Six months into Barry O'Farrell's draconian small hours, inner-city lockout laws, the evidence is still mostly anecdotal. Some say the violence is down, some say it's up (because everyone pours out at once). Others say it has dispersed or gone underground. But even if it's option A, and the legislation has worked, the cost may be more than we should pay.

Answering violence with a lockout is like answering a forest ambush with clear-felling. A street like Oxford Street is far more than a conduit. It's an ecosystem; an intricate interlace of battle and support, a rhythmic diurnal dance of day dwellers, evening meanderers, nighthawks and, yes, predators; waking and sleeping, opening and closing as the Earth turns. O'Farrell's lockout sprayed this jungle with Agent Orange.

And yes, it's that dramatic. Walk up Oxford Street. Club after club is closed; not just after 1.30am, but completely. Permanently.

Advertisement

True, Oxford Street has other issues; specifically Westfield Bondi Junction and online shopping. But shopping is daytime; clubbing is night. Oxford Street has been defined by its capacity to do both. So when a knee-jerk law clears a swath through the city economy, rethinking is required.

I say rethinking but, frankly, any thinking would help. After the king-hit deaths of Thomas Kelly in 2012 and Daniel Christie on New Years Eve 2013, "alcohol-fuelled violence" became one of those phrases. Like "stop the boats". Like "jobs jobs jobs". Like Team Australia.

Dangerously headline-friendly, such one-line, no-brain slogans should never be let into law. Their very crowd appeal shows their vacuity.

O'Farrell described his lockout as "pioneering legislation"; code for, we have absolutely no idea whether this will work. Undaunted by cliché, however, immune to the nuances of urban life, our then Premier blundered through the wilderness to deliver his "tough and comprehensive package".

The new laws included eight-year mandatory sentencing for one-hit deaths, 48-hour bans for troublemakers, $1100 instant fines, 10pm bottle shop closing and 1.30am lockouts with 3am shut-outs. So many measures, so little measuring. And actually, even if we could measure, and violence was demonstrably reduced, we'd have no way of knowing which of the many provisions had done it.

But this is just the start. Even the need for the laws is doubtful.

An ABS paper from July 2013 shows that, over the five years to December 2012, assaults at licensed premises dropped by 23.7 per cent. NSW recorded crime statistics show that from January 2009 to December 2013, alcohol-related incidents were stable in inner Sydney (and across almost the entire state; with significant drops in Blacktown, Liverpool and Wollongong). (Only Parramatta showed an increase).

Plus, as O'Farrell acknowledged in the days after the Daniel Christie attack, neither his nor Thomas Kelly's death would have been prevented by the laws. Both attacks occurred early in the evening, about 9pm to 10pm.

"One am lockouts and 3am shut-outs . . . would have had no impact," O'Farrell declared at the time.

Yet, within the month, he would introduce precisely these measures as law, telling parliament, "more needs to be done to improve the safety and amenity of the Sydney central business district, particularly late at night . . ."

The law created a new entity, the Sydney CBD entertainment district. (The name is Orwellian since what they are not interested in is city entertainment.) The "district" includes all of the Cross, most of Elizabeth Bay, part of Surry Hills and the entire city centre including Chinatown, the Rocks and Walsh Bay. Barangaroo and both casinos, however, are excluded.

Is this simple ineptitude? Or is it a bizarre form of anti-urbanism?

It is conspicuously city specific. When, at a Rooty Hill house party, Hugh Garth allegedly one-punched 21-year-old nursing graduate Raynor Manalad to the ground, allegedly causing a haemorrhage and death; no one put western Sydney on curfew.

You can just see it, can't you? Ban house parties from Blacktown to Mount Druitt. Ten o'clock curfew Quakers Hill to Eastern Creek. It's almost like violence is fine out there. Expected. But when it's inner Sydney, where the bourgeoisie hang, the response is immediate, extreme and partial to government friends.

Perhaps it's just the old wowsers' revenge on the city. Just as 19th century evangelists like William Wilberforce conceived the idea of the suburb as a weapon against the evils of city nightlife, so the Liberal government framed laws designed specifically to destroy the city's nightlife.

Or it could be something more sinister; yet another arrow in the government's get Clover quiver.

The Darlinghurst end of Oxford Street is Sydney's traditional gay strip, Sydney's core clubbing scene and lord mayor Clover Moore's political heartland. It is now devastated. In one block, between Flinders and South Dowling, I counted 16 empty premises, out of 34. Almost half.

To see why, you have to understand how people socialise these days. It's not my pattern, although I do occasionally seek out a late night watering hole. But young people don't even start going out till 10pm or so and then, because of mobile connectivity, it's loose. A leisurely meal with one group, followed by a chilled drink till midnight or one with another, then someone suggests clubbing.

Clubbing doesn't mean you go to one place and stay there. It means you move around, checking out this underground dive, that gay bar or the new cabaret. You change groups, bar hop, split and reconnect, play it by ear. The two core ingredients are density and alcohol. It's about disinhibition and critical mass; small bars, which are theoretically exempt, rely on the ebb and flow to survive.

I'm not pro-alcohol or pro-violence. But good cities need nightlife and this involves risk. Sending revellers to Erko or Crows Nest doesn't reduce violence, it just changes the stats and – good heavens! – the inner-city vote.

Twitter @emfarrelly

93 comments so far

Having driven cabs for 30 years on and off in Sydney regularly on Saturdays I'd say that Sydney leading up to the lockout was the safest it had ever been in my memory, a fact backed up by the statistics. The young kids today, especially the young men are way better behaved than back in the 80's or 90's. They are generally respectful and tolerant, well dressed and rarely drink too much. The young people work and study hard and deserve to be able to have some fun. Security in clubs was strict and the vast majority never found any problems.

The lockout was a massive overreaction by the stupid old men of the Liberal Party who want to control every aspect of young people's lives in the hope they might turn into narrow minded old bigots like themselves.

It's sad to see Sydney such a ghosttown. Why would the young people who flocked here from all over the world want to stay here now and pay ridiculous exorbitant rent in a city where nothing happens any longer. They will go elsewhere.

Sydney has shot itself in the foot. The most expensive city in the world with no nightlife.

Commenter

Bob

Location

Sydney

Date and time

August 28, 2014, 4:38AM

G'day bob, and a merry morning to you.Thank you, EF - a thought provoking piece.Of the empty premises you identify, are you able to say how many were a result of the 'lock out laws'? I am a habitué of the area, and most of the vacant places are former retail and clothing type shops - I can't see how the laws you lament could be significant in their demise?

Commenter

Howe Synnott

Location

Sydney

Date and time

August 28, 2014, 7:08AM

You are right on the money - I have also driven cabs for some time and lived in the area (at one stage on Oxford St) If Sydney IS an 'international city' - where is the nightlife? It's actually embarrassing. This place is turning into such a Nanny State. What next? Read all our emails and texts to see if we are all terrorists? (note to self - what is worse? - Big Brother or Nanny?)Greed and incompetence has ruined Oxford St. Greed in the form of unrealistic rents from selfish landlords - this thing called the internet has cut into retail stores profits by way over 25% - while the rents have increased by way over 25% over the past few years. Two in 3 shops are closed in Paddington.The club scene has been double hamstrung by a corrupt old politician who was happy to drink his Grange at home. On top of this I see a large proportion of my friends in retail and the club / bar industry either out of work or living on the bread line...How long does this what was a vibrant place have to rot before something productive is done?

Commenter

Mr Party Pooper

Location

Darlinghurst

Date and time

August 28, 2014, 8:30AM

Huh? There's TONS of nightlife in Sydney! And there is no doubt that these changes have had a very positive impact on night time safety in Sydney. Just walking in Darlinghurst you can feel the difference late at night. Well done to the government for taking some positive action

Commenter

luke r

Date and time

August 28, 2014, 1:05PM

Nailed it Bob!

Commenter

Sean

Location

Sydney

Date and time

August 28, 2014, 1:13PM

Nightlife in Sydney after 1.30 is groups of people standing on street corners chatting because they can't get in anywhere.

Commenter

GOV

Location

Sydney

Date and time

August 28, 2014, 1:14PM

As someone who has spent most of his adult life hanging around Oxford Street nightlife, I can say without a doubt that Ms Farrelly has got this ENTIRELY wrong. The lock out laws have had nothing to do with the demise of Oxford Street. There were only a handful of nightclubs on Oxford Street anyway and, at last count, they are all still there and frequented by the usual clientele. Oxford Street has been sick for over a decade. It's the retail shops and restaurants that have left, but none of that has anything at all to do with the lock out laws. Me thinks the author has some other agenda at play here.

Commenter

Oxford St lurker

Date and time

August 28, 2014, 1:23PM

What has been hurting Oxford Street for the last ten years had been the rise of Darling Harbour and then Kings X, particularly Bayswater Road, coupled with the aging and gentrification of Paddington and Surry Hills and the shift in youth culture to the inner west.

The lock out laws will drive everywhere in the zone to the same state that Oxford Street is at.

The best solution would have been simply to restrict the number of licences in Kings X as there were just too many people in a small area at times and the area just became too intense.

Commenter

GOV

Location

Sydney

Date and time

August 28, 2014, 1:57PM

Thanks Elizabeth. We now (haven't we always?) have the measure of elected representatives. Thank you ICAC for that. Good policy they do not do. Thinking is not their suit. Evidence? What's that? Please someone, somewhere save us from this. March against a war? No-one listens. Revolution? Pass the remote control. Beer anyone?

Commenter

Seaweed

Date and time

August 28, 2014, 5:30AM

The "evidence" has been right there in the BOCSAR data for the Sydney LGA which consistently shows that 12 am to 6 am is the highest risk time of the week for assaults. Its been the elephant in the room for years.

If you restrict access to venues after 1.30, you prevent people from pub crawling and you dont have people prowling the streets getting into trouble. It worked in Newcastle, it is working in Sydney. The lockouts didnt work in Melbourne because the regulators allowed so many exceptions that the system ended up like swiss cheese - something that might still happen here once the lobbyists get back in the game.

You can pay for the costs of alcohol abuse in two ways -either through lost revenue from lost late trading, or by hospitalisations, the criminal justice system, prisons, more police, insurance claims, council cleaning coats, cctv coverage, lost workplace productivity and social security costs through people rendered permanently or temporarily disabled.

Choose your poison, but dont pretend that there is no evidence for this response.